Slashdot Mirror
Ports System As A Strategy Against .NET?
proclus writes: "The FreeBSD ports system has been ported to Mac OSX, GNU/Linux, LinuxPPC, and OpenBSD. Check out this descriptive paper and roll your own ports-based distribution."
Besides an some informative description of the mechanics of the port system, the paper lays out the case for ports (free and readily available) as a good antidote for .Net and other subscription-based systems.
We should all keep in mind this simple truth: Slashdot's BSD section is dying.
You don't need to be Kreskin to predict Slashdot's BSD section's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Slashdot's BSD section faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Slashdot's BSD section because Slashdot's BSD section is dying. Things are looking very bad for Slashdot's BSD section. As many of us are already aware, Slashdot's BSD section continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
BSD section reader, Anonymous Coward, states that there are 7 readers of Slashdot's BSD section. How many readers of Slashdot's BSD section are there? Let's see. The number of BSD versus Linux posts on Usenet is roughly 200, 50% lower than last year, which was 50% below the year before. In 1999, there were a known 28 readers of Slashdot's BSD section. This is consistant with the figures provided by Anonymous Coward.
Additionally, the number of "*BSD is dying" posts has been on the rise. In 1999, there were 2000 "*BSD is dying" posts, which rose to 4000 in 2000, and a staggering 8000 in 2001. This is consistant with the number of Usenet posts and is clear evidence that Slashdot's BSD section is dying.
All major surveys show that Slashdot's BSD section has steadily declined in market share. Slashdot's BSD section is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If Slashdot's BSD section is to survive at all it will be among OS hobbyists, dabblers, and dilettantes. Slashdot's BSD section continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Slashdot's BSD section is dead.
Just because it's on the PowerPC does not stop LinuxPCC from being a GNU system.
Wouldn't 'GNU/Linux-x86' and 'GNU/Linux-PPC' be more fitting?
.NET is a virtual machine. You don't subscribe, although the VM will make it easier to support these types of business models.
The gentoo linux distro (www.gentoo.org) has a package management system similar to FreeBSD ports, fyrc.
Yeah yeah yeah. Don't we know all those ideas already? It's not new.
.NET and fighting a court battle. What's more they are really stuck without ideas for some really useful new features for their Office Suite and OS.
.NET? So MS can ass rape them? .NET for large internet companies means ripping out thier currnet setup and paying more money for something that's not even proven yet. And having the newest versions of Office and word for "free" isn't what you always want. Retraining and getting thrid party software remade for the new platform is a real pain and it's not at all useful for many companies.
What is new is this. North America's in a recession. Micrsoft's trying to ensure a steady stream of money for itself. IT is also trying to do a million things at the same time.
From launching the Xbox to introducing "Upgrade Advantage" down people's throats and bringing out C# then
With this new subscription model they hope to force upgrades ( which should be free ) and so have greater control over what you run. I mean if every new release of windows breaks compatibility with "unwanted software" it's pretty hard to sell your stuff eh?
Why would business want to jump into bed with
Personally I don't see Microsoft as being in a very strong posisiton right now.
look at this site for info: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/p orters-handbook/index.html
Passport is a unified authentication system, not a subscription-based service.
.Net, not really part of .Net.
You are thinking of Hailstorm.
Actually I'd say Hailstorm is possible because of
It does, although IIRC building dependencies for the source isn't really a stable feature yet. From the man page for apt-get:
However, that will only download/build/install the one source package. If one wants to install the packages required to satisfy the build dependencies for a given source package, the build-dep option should be used with apt-get.
Actually a line like this will get all dependencies automagically the same way the ports collection does:
pkg_add ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/packages/
I like to build from ports for things that need a whole lot of customisation (say mod_php). But for things like gimp that are pretty generic, I'll grab the binary packages because its a whole hell of a lot faster. (Yes even faster than compiling on my 1ghz Athalon.)
Every time I think that FreeBSD has let me down, I find out that I was just stupid.
-Peter
. Penguins Surely Ca
What's wrong with grabbing a source package and doing rpm --rebuild? Okay, that's two steps instead of one, but it's not that much of a big deal.
If apt could download source packages, resolve dependencies, and install, that would be perfect. You could even unpack each source package in some special system-wide 'ports' directory for those who think having the whole source tree in one place is cute.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
unfortunatly there has been many offerings of free software in the past. Do people use it over commercially available software? Are people flocking to Linux over MS b/c it is free?
No.
People go w/the mass. We are the crazy ones (smart?)
It's unfortunate but true.
WTF!!! That gets moderated as flamebait!
Heaven forbid I corrected somone who was factually incorrect. Just imagine if people who were wrong started being corrected. We would get a more informed slashdot community, and people might start checking basic facts before posting. Good thing I was moderated as flamebait before I caused real damage.
Ben
For a company so evil, at least they're extending a hand, but according to some this is viewed as MS looking to stir up troubles in the open source community.
.net gains wide acceptable. If people view it as a Microsoft only solution, it won't gain that. Having it run on BSD will make people more secure in writing for .net because it isn't just a windows thing anymore.
Extend a hand? What do you think this is, diplomacy? Microsoft is doing what is in their best interest, and right now that is making use
It is sort of analogous to front page extentions. Sure, Microsoft ported their frontpage extentsions to Unix. Was it altruism? No! It was neccisary to gain acceptance.
So don't tell me "a company so evil" or "they're extending a hand" - Microsoft is not trying to be your best friend. They are not an a x-girlfriend after a difficult break up. Microsoft is another self-interested pragmatist and if it suits them they will port their software, but it is totaly unrealated to "extending a hand" or being "less evil".
Ben
Trith writes: The thing that makes Java WORA is the fact that the API goes with the language and the runtime enviroment. C# will be providing two of the three, the Runtime and the language.
.NET Common Language Infrastructure includes the .NET Framework Class Library. They have names like system.net and system.io whatever, so it feels a lot like Java's libraries.
You are misinformed.
Ben
What does this have to do with .NET; I assumed there would be some kind of intermediate code base or something. But all I see is an open platform.
.Net bytecode going to get compiled down for applications? Such large applications are suppose to be converted to native during the install. When are these BSD packages convered to native? Well, one can do it when one installs a program (one could also grab a pre-compiled binary for one's specific system if available, but one doesn't have to).
.net's bytecode is really rather analogous to the free software communities' use of source code. So in practice, this set of highly portable software depending on parts of FreeBSD as a "runtime" is a system that is offering many of the same benfits as the .net platform.
I suggest that "c" is functioning as the intermediate language. Following me on this one.
When is
What does distributing in the source code gain? The ability to check for security problems and to compile down to one's specific systems. What does distributing in the byte code get? The ability to check for security (by having a logical sandbox) and compile down to one's specific system.
So I suggest the use of
I suspect Timothy was meaning some simular.
Ben
I agree, not merging needed changes back into the real source, even if they are "just" for makefiles (!), is asking for big trouble. Most of the time, those kinds of changes can be effected through the configure scripts.
I don't mean that C# isn't cross platform because it isn't WORA. I mean that it is not WORA and it is also not cross platform. It probably read that I was talking about C# but I actually mean .NET in this case. I should have written more clearly. Yes, you can probably compile many command line C# apps on UNIX. But as soon as you get into network, GUI, data structures APIs, etc it will not compile. You would have to use a toolkit such as QT or GTK for the GUI. You would then have to make UNIX calls using socket.h for networking. With all this, yes you could get a C# app to compile and run. So, it's a cross platform language like C++. But it takes C# out of the scope of .NET. So, .NET is not cross platform.
As for Java's WORA, I've had no issues.
As for Java's lack of non-blocking I/O up until 1.4, that sucked.
-----
The thing that makes Java WORA is the fact that the API goes with the language and the runtime enviroment. C# will be providing two of the three, the Runtime and the language. But seriously, how many C# apps will run on FreeBSD without that API?
:-)
Answer: Hellow World
-----
Perhaps someone at Red Hat doesn't want their job to get easier (i.e. job security).
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
.NET is an end-to-end environment geared towards producing subscription based software... (and preferably locking you into subscription to _microsoft_ software) It doesn't really make it easier or harder to code stuff on windows (except for they updated, and slightly more logical APIs, over win32's utter crud (CALLBACK anyone?)).
Technologies like XML and SOAP make it easier for companies to provide "services" over the internet - but, what if they provided a service and nobody came? To put it another way, what's the point in allowing people to "lease" software, if they're not going to use, because us Free Software people are giving it away for free? FreeBSD ports is a wonderful distribution system.
Choice of masters is not freedom.
Most patches (not all) in a port are only there to get the package to build on a specific system. They would be totally useless elsewhere. And most have nothing to do with the code itself.
Case in point: net-snmp on FreeBSD-4.3. The majority of patches are to makefiles. The majority of the rest only updated the FreeBSD version macros. Actual code changes are rare, and are only for the purpose of getting the software to build.
You are not like all other developers. We all work in different ways. I develop on FreeBSD and Slackware. If a patch came in for HPUX, I wouldn't accept it. It would be pointless to do so. I cannot test it, and cannot maintain it. Unless it were an actual bug fix, I would ignore it. If the HPUX maintainer is willing to do the work I'm more than happy. I'll add him to my update mailing list along with a thank you note and a virtual beer.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
And with the official CDs, you get thousands of precompiled packages all ready to run with no download. It doesn't take a Kreskin to know that some people will grasp at any straw in an effort to bash someone else's OS.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
It's Darwin plus all the GNU stuff.
FreeBSD, from which Darwin was in part based, also contains all of the GNU stuff. I am assuming that GNU-Darwin is still using the Mach microkernel and the FreeBSD derived OS. Or have pieces of Darwin been replaced by their GNU equivalents?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Using the ports system we are building our distribution quickly, and since it's Darwin, we can introduce many OSX users to free software in the process.
:-)
I'm still not sure I get you. Perhaps all the Independence Day beer has gone to my head
I had assumed that Darwin was already a finished (although minimal) system. And coming from FreeBSD land, I had always envisioned the ports as being supplementary to the OS. Are you saying that GNU-Darwin is using the ports system to actually build the OS (as opposed to a buildworld)?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
There are problems with the APSL. However it still meets every definition of Free Software. RMS might not think it is, but the definition he created says it is.
The APSL meets every point. I'm not saying it's the best license out there. Far from it. But the APSL does manage to squeak through the definitions set in place by RMS decades before the creation of the APSL.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
1. APSL requires reporting to Apple.
The four freedoms do not mention freedom from reporting modifications to the author.
2. APSL does not respect privacy
This is exactly the same as number 1. Again, the four freedoms do not mention freedom from reporting modifications to the author.
3. Apple has too much revocation power under APSL.
This flaw in the APSL was fixed. It had to be fixed before it could be officially Open Source. RMS even acknowledges that this problem is fixed.
The only thing left in the APSL that is problematic to RMS (and to me as well, by the way) is the prohibition against private modifications used commercially. But again, the Free Software definition does not mention the freedom from reporting modifications to the author.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I didn't say he approved it. He said that the first two of the three objections he had to the APSL have been fixed by Apple. He still has an objection remaining, and that is the requirement to disclose all modifications. You can find this information in the very first paragraph of the page you site.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I don't get this article at all. It's full of jargon, hyperbole and muddlethink. I'm sure there's a good idea buried in here somewhere, but I can't find it.
...the naive user will not have to face a daunting tangle of dependency.
These ports have tens of thousands of interconnections, called dependencies, which must be satisfied in order to build the applications.
No port has tens of thousands of dependencies. And since you only build one port at a time, there is no need to take into account the dependencies of any unrelated port.
Such a large and complex network of software dependencies...
It's not a complex network. It's a simple tree.
an uber-system has been superposed on the ports system
Time to go back to English class!
A) Give your users respect. They are not naive. B) Dependencies are not tangled.
Thus, the FreeBSD ports system, now as a cross-platform, globally distributed, cooperative development and distribution system could form a nexus of user freedom and empowerment.
It's nice to read that on the 4th of July, but what the fsck does it mean?!?
p.s. Why is he calling this version of Darwin "GNU-Darwin"? Is this a GNU project? Does he think that Darwin is really the GNU System?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Not at all! I said that every developer is different. By all means, do not do what I do!
However, I can offer one solution. If you are releasing net-snmp for use on FreeBSD, I can only assume that you test it on FreeBSD, and thus have a FreeBSD box somewhere to use. Why not become the port maintainer yourself?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Maybe if he realised that rpm and apt are completely different things he would have a better time?
.debs rarely go wrong, as some care is usually taken in creating them. The same cannot
apt uses rpm or preferably dpkg as a package management system. You use dpkg if something goes wrong on a debian system with packages.
Happily,
be said of any rpm based system I have ever used.
Did you know that Dr. Evil is the princess of Canada?
Yeah. Although he can't actually back that up with paper work.
just = (My)Opinion.toCents();
Can't we just pay Dr. Evil six million dollars if he'll go away?
You don't understand the Ports system very well then. The source is fetched _automatically_ and then it's built _automatically_ as well. No knowledge of transfer protocols is necessary, no knowledge of autoconf, automake, configure, etc is necessary. All of the innumerable problems were taken care of by the Maintainer so that you don't have to worrya bout them. A single command does all that is required. Don't like or know how to use a command line? Click a button that does it for you. There are already a few GUI frontends to Ports. The OpenPackages project will definately be able to provide the framework for a userfriendly, custom installed-software-at-a-whim system.
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
If BSD developers were out to gain anything of material value they wouldn't be writing free software in the first place. This argument by GNU advocates is weak in this regard. If you're all worried about someone selling your code and you not getting anything in return, why do you write it? It's about writing damned good code for your own personal use. Most projects start out of the needs of the original author. So some big scary company comes and gets a copy... so what? Original Author keeps writing his code as it suits him and (hopefully) anyone else who finds it useful.
WRT RedHat making money and OpenBSD and FreeBSD not.... *BSDs are software Projects, not software Companies. They're not OUT to make money. RedHat is. For that matter, Linux itself doesn't _make_ any money, and Linus didn't write it for that reason either. It got him a job and some nice free stock, but many companies who rely on the BSD projects hire full time BSD developers, so it works both ways.
I think it's time you reevaluated your goals. What do you want out of the software you write? The respect and admiration of your peers or a wad of cash?
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
Boy, that sure was a whole lot of well spoken points. I can't help but think they were meant for some other topic.
I clearly wasn't suggesting or advocating writing open source software for free instead of writing commercial, closed source software for pay.
If you don't want to write free (in both senses) software, then don't - and you won't here me, or ANY BSD advocate slight you for it. But if you do write free software, don't bitch about the money it's not making you. That's _all_ I said.
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
My work is there, and it's still useful to anyone who used it in the first place. There's two scenarios here:
Life for me and my copy of My Software is unchanged. So what if Their Software doesn't work with My Software? In Scenario #1 They don't even exist. The only difference is that Thousands benefit from My Software, where only a few did before. The terms of My License may or may not require that I be acknowledged for it.
The Emphasis placed on your quoted text is my reponse to the bit about money. It (your argument) absolutely IS about money. (It's about something else too, which you either haven't realized or refuse to acknowledge - but I'll save it for later.) If it was money I was interested in I would have either made it closed source in the first place, or look, it's a BSD license, so I CAN!
I also assume that the incompatible software you're referring to is Kerberos. If this is the case then you misunderstand the Kerberos issue. Please search for my nick among the (now flattened) comments on this older /. story. (There is either a feature or a bug that is preventing me from linking to the specific ${cid}s. Probably related to the flattening.)
The bigger problem is that the BSD license selects for fragmentation rather than cohesiveness. Apple takes BSD, folds it into their OS, software developers write programs to work with Apple's BSD - none of it will run on your personal BSD. Your hard work was used to create a system that doesn't support your chosen OS. You are left out in the cold vis a vis software developers (no games or any other possibly desirous apps for you - just whatever you and your relatively few buddies can spin up in a weekend).
I think you're confused about a great many things regarding BSD and MacOS X. BSD hasn't been folded into MacOS. MacOS has been re-written on top of Darwin, which is Mach/FreeBSD. Any MacOS developers would be writing for MacOS. This means (IIRC) Carbon and Cocoa software, things which aren't possible on a vanilla BSD system anyway.
Darwin developers on the other hand, whether their dev OS is MacOS X or Darwin on PPC or x86 would be writing for the Unix OS that Darwin is. Any (non arch dependant) code would run with little modification (assuming it was OSS) on any *nix.
Me and my buddies were there before, and we'll be there after.
This may be perfectly fine for a few hardcore BSD users but it is NOT in the best interests of standards and general end-users.
Evil Mind Controlling Mega-Corps aside, how is the widespread use of my code not a benefit to others? As you say, they are subject to the whims of Evil Mega-Corp. They always will be whether I write BSD software or not. If this bit is an argument in favor of the GPL, I'm not seeing it. The sheep will use what the Evil Mega-Corp tells them they should use, be it _in spite_ of the GPL or _because_ of BSD.
I'm afraid I lost you on the next paragraph. Definate degradation detected.
M$ CAN and WILL embrace, extend, extinguish ANYONE who tries to compete against them, whether they are offereng some BSD variant or not. On the other hand, M$ cannot legally do this to linux. They cannot embrace and extend it, thus marginalizing it - if they tried, they would be de facto violating copyright law and would be liable.
Microsoft certainly could(we're talking possibility here, not probability) compete against and extinguish Linux. There's nothing illegal there. They can even embrace it. And they can even extend it. Only if they don't give those extensions back is it a violation of law. It's never going to happen of course, but for the purposes of this debate, it's not only _possible_, it's legal. I'm afraid you left yourself open with that "or not".
I really don't see how *BSD and its licensing is in any way an improvement on anything. It still allows monopolists like M$ to do business as usual whether they use BSD stuff or not.
The contradiction there is so strong it's almost painful. BSD and it's license allows monopolists to continue even if they don't use it? Come again?
Now for the something else. It's about control. That's it. It's not about money, though that's the first thing out of everyone's mouth. It's not even about Freedom (both kinds).
Is the GPL a good thing? Yes. Are Berkeley style licenses a good thing? Yes. Is one better than the other (The improvement you suggested)? Depends on the software.
Dramatic finale omitted.
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
I was directly responding to your assertion that the end user has to know how to fetch, configure, build and install software.
They do not. Not with *BSD Ports or Packages or any of the Linux package systems.
Whether just running 'make' is a significant difference over './configure && make install' isn't the point. It's that the user doesn't have to know how, which you claimed they did.
--
--
My comments and opinions completely reflect those of anyone and anything I am remotely associated with.
>>some undocumented APIs gave a "massive advantage" to the "Office Suite".
... There should be no need to call it directly.
Simple test. Crash machine on every call to an undocumented API. Will Microsoft Office still run?
>>The Windows NT kernel is undocumented for a reason
Errr, what else should an application program call for kernel services? I think on any viable system, the kernel tends to be extremely well documented.
There are enough known undocumented APIs and enough history that it is inconcievable that Microsoft is not using them to give a "massive advantage" to the "Office Suite".
The "massive advantage" is not from one undocumented API, but from many undocumented APIs. This includes lack of documentation of any parameter values.
... calls an intermediate personality layer.
>>An application
Repeat three times with a straight face.
Who's the one picking a fight here?
You guys started it. Microsoft finally noticed that not a day has gone by since 1996 (or earlier) without some zealot calling repeatedly for Bill Gates' head on a platter.
So after all that namecalling, threats to throw grenades at the Redmond campus (I remember reading THAT one in 1998, and nearly called the FBI)... what do you expect?
You think this is *bad*? What if they lowered themselves to the average Slashdot poster's level? Wouldn't that be scary...
Si
Coming soon - pyrogyra
This is going to sound trollish, so let me apologize in advance.
.NET? I read the article and was even more confused. I see it has something to do with package dependancies, but that's about it.
I guess I'm not up-to-snuff in my BSDisms. What is this ports facility, and what does it have to do with
Can someone spare me a clue?
Yes, but my point is that people don't do that. (which is why something slightly more automatted is needed).
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
Don't get me wrong... The portst tree is an excellent thing (as are .deps, .rpms, ...). My only complaint is about local modifications to sources that have no reasons for being kept solely there. (note that there are cases where you would want to keep a patch away from the developers, like if you wanted to release the patch under the GPL and the original code was BSD based. Giving them the patch would destroy their licence).
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
By far, the worst distributor in this regcard is RedHat. I figured for years they were merely building the source and distributing the binaries as is. The first time I looked at the spec file I found around 4 patches I had never seen before and didn't even know some of the bugs existed. Well, I thought, I'll contact them and see whats up. "Sorry, I'll try to make sure patches get your way in the future". Of course, when I checked the source rpm for the next release I found yet more patches I'd never seen... Sigh... I don't have a solution to this problem, though an obvious one might be something along the lines of at least asking the maintainer if they wished to receive CVS messages or CVS patches on a regular basis from the ports trees, or to be added as a default contact for the external bug database for a given package (To solve the redhat problem, I'm forced to go search through their bug database occasionally). Don't get me wrong, I think distributing the source and binaries in an external "easy-to-use" fashion is a great thing. What I consider wrong is to not at least mention to the original developers that changes have been made. Sure, its legal and even goes along with the licence in most cases, but in the long run I would think it would save the ports maintainers a lot of conflict merging if they kept in touch with the package developers.
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
http://rpmfind.net
First BSD version: 1BSD (march 9th 1978)
see The Unix history page for detailed information about all Unices.
-- Nothing is as subjective as reality --
Yuck! /usr/local is for LOCAL software. Not managed ports stuff. I'd like to see something like /usr/ports for that stuff.
--
Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
I'm not saying that the ports is an all encompassing .NET, but rather, I see some development potential where
.NET-style service applications, but
.NET, and we need a response. I'm arguing
.NET valueless.
substitute for
the ports system might stand in for
free. I don't want to use Word for the rest of my life, and I
especially don't want to pay subscription fees for it. I see M$ trying
to kill free software with
that the ports could be a crucial part of that response, which could
render
A response is better than carping about M$, or cowtowing with open source support for an initiative that could potentially damage the free software movement.
Regards,
proclus
From the GNU-Darwin masthead:
GNU-Darwin aims to be the most free Darwin-based Unix distribution. Our mission is two-fold: Focus on new projects that leverage the unique capabilities of Darwin/Mach and help Apple users to enjoy the benefits of free software.
Thank you for this helpful criticism, and in the next paper, I will modify the presentation accordingly.
Regards,
proclus
The Distribution has ported free software to Darwin in order to build a stand alone Unix distribution, and at the same time, to expose Apple users to free software. GNU-Darwin is free software running on Darwin. Mac OSX is proprietary software running on the very same Darwin. All of the GNU-Darwin offering run unmodified on Mac OSX.
Although APSL is OSI approved, and Darwin is undeniably open source, it is not yet truly free. The Distribution is unsatisfied with the current state of the APSL, and we are advocating to FREE Darwin according to the FSF definition.
Regards,
proclus
> However it still meets every definition of Free Software.
APSL is not a free software licence.
1. APSL requires reporting to Apple.
2. APSL does not respect privacy
3. Apple has too much revocation power under APSL.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/apsl.html
For these reasons, The GNU-Darwin Distribution has not made any contributions to APSL covered code, and we are advocating for greater freedom.
Regards,
proclus
Nope these three problems have not been fixed. APSL is OSI approved, but it is not a free software license. You say that RMS approves of APSL now, but that is incorrect. Read the FSF website.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/apsl.html
Regards,
proclus
My apologies, that last post of mine lacked a little in accuracy, but the fact remains that Darwin is not free software until this problem with the APSL is fixed.
BTW, I have really enjoyed our discussion here. Thank you for your excellent questions, Arandir.
Regards,
proclus
"Is there an issue with verifying the servers connected to, incase they have been hacked and trojans installed?"
Every port that is downloaded is checksumed with MD5 before it is unpacked, so the user is protected. Since you are downloading source and not binaries, the chance of virus problems is greatly reduced.
Regards,
proclus
The ports ideal is that you change the desired ports directory and type "make install", no fuss, no problems, done. Most of the BSD distributions meet the ideal so that users can have fresh compiled binaries without any fuss. The GNU-Darwin system does not meet this ideal yet, but that is our goal, and we will accomplish it.
;-}.
Now imagine such a system, but coupled to a friendly GUI, that even auntie jane could love. You get all of this greatness with a click of a button.
Plus, it's FREE. That ought to appeal to uncle joe's pocketbook, and his sense of independence as well
Regards,
proclus
The first question is why Windows. If you can make a plausible case that such an innovation would lead users to freedom, as we do at GNU-Darwin, then port the system. Otherwise, don't. Maybe someone should give a tip to the guys at GnuWin32, but not me ;-}. Simply making free software available is not good enough.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/gnuwin32/
Regards,
proclus
I love perl, and I want perl, so I go to the ports.
/usr/ports/lang/perl5/
cd
make install
There is a vast number of perl related apps and modules that can be install automatically with the ports system.
http://www.freebsd.org/ports/perl5.html
It should be noted that for most *nix users, perl comes pre-installed, but the ports system would be a great way to quickly get alot of perl functionality onto a new platform.
Regards,
proclus
You might want to double check how these manuals appear in xpdf. Kudos and Many Thanks!
Regards,
proclus
I think that the cited books should suffice for such common knowledge. How about if you prove the guy wrong?
Regards,
proclus
These are not extrodinary claims at all considering M$ history. Just check his references, if you are not satisfied.
Regards,
proclus
> Are you saying that with ports, there is NEVER a dependency problem?
Yes, that is the correct conclusion, and a fair characterization of the ports. Nothing is perfect but in most cases, much thought has been expended to make sure that all of the dependencies will be automatically satisfied all the time.
> That itself is a problem. 56K modem downloading 75 megabytes of stuff to make the 200k package properly compile?
That problem is alleviated by the fact that the system checks your build table and binary directories before it downloads anything. There are no superfluous downloads with the ports system, and source downloads are typically smaller than package downloads.
The ports system is the only system like it, that does all of this. Other systems may have parts, but the ports system is a comprehensive whole.
Regards,
proclus
http://www.gnu-darwin.org/
All the more power to them, however the community should focus on creating, and making things better, not trying to pick fights
...hasn't anyone ever thought that there are Windows programmers who develop things on their own, post them at sites like Tucows, and are actually happy with using Windows.
Hallowe'en Documents.
"Linux is like Communism"
"The GPL will steal all of your hard-earned IP."
"The GPL is like Pac-man."
"We're going to support FreeBSD but not Linux because the license is better...for developers. Really."
Who's the one picking a fight here?
Oh, I know there are people perfectly happy with using and developing on Windows. I don't wish to deny them that choice. The problem is, Microsoft wishes to deny me the choice to use anything else, by making sure Microsoft "standards" are more prevalent than any other "standards", real or perceived, and ensuring you can only take advantage of MS "standards" on MS platforms. Individual actions alone may not be "smoking guns," but the sum of their actions and behaviour towards any potential competitors and developers leads me to believe they wish to deny me and millions of others a choice we don't begrudge their customers.
That is wrong. I don't mind them innovating. I do mind them assimilating and trying to make sure the only way is the Microsoft way. I'm a consumer too, and I demand a choice of software and available tools, even if MS wishes to deny me one.
Call it paranoia, but that's the view from here.
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
Is this going to catch things like a new version of a base package coming out, which breaks a package depending on it? (eg. libmcrypt 2.4.pre-11 breaks PHP)
Will it distinguish between stable versions and development versions? (who has apt-get upgraded their ssh server and found it to become insecure..)
Is there an issue with verifying the servers connected to, incase they have been hacked and trojans installed? (cf. Creative's autoupdate)
Every time Dr. Evil announces that he is working on a new weapon, you folks always assume it is
going to be some orbiting death-ray, a volcano machine, or a bomb that will blow the earth into
little bits. You are always jumping to conclusions...
Maybe this time Dr. Evil is making a weapon that will fight crime and make our streets safe. Or
one that only works against crooked lawyers and politicians. But I repeat myself. Did you even
consider the possibility that Dr. Evil might be trying to be helpful this time? No, you didn't.
Frankly, if I were Dr. Evil, I would be pretty upset with this constant stereotyping. Maybe that
is the cause of his inner anger that causes him to do these things. You are to blame, not him...
A dingo ate my sig...
You didn't read what I wrote either (you even quoted it). :)
OK, so if it crashed, it would be a massive disadvantage, right?
But I want to know what the "massive advantage" is that can be gained by a call to some undocumented API. Come on, I'm a programmer, I can take the technical details. Give me a DLL and a function name. Maybe I can call one of these secret APIs myself! Until I see hard details, I will not believe any of this paranoia.
An application doesn't call the NT kernel directly, it calls an intermediate personality layer, one example of which is the Win32 API.
"Inconceivable"! Hahaha have you seen The Princess Bride? I just love your "Argument From Personal Incredulity"! (BTW, "i before e except after c"!)
Look, no-one has posted a *single instance* of an undocumented API called by Microsoft Office. Until someone does, I shall remain unconvinced. And the original poster said (although he has since softened) "massive advantage". I'm a game programmer, and I am having a hard time thinking what I could do with an undocumented API. Microsoft Office? What could you possibly want to do that you can't do with the Win32 API?
He made the claim, the burden of proof is his, not mine. Why can't he quote the relevant parts? It would be fair use. I don't own the books. I would guess that most readers of this forum don't own the books either.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The guy claimed that Microsoft Office was using undocumented APIs to gain a "massive advantage" over competitors. Show me the DLL and function names.
Show me the DLL and function names.
He he. I'm posting this from a Gentoo-RC5 box as we speak It really is pretty cool. Still needs a bit of polishing up, but when its ready, I can guarentee that this distro is going places! PS> It has i686 optimizations!
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I used to agree with you, until I got into Debian. Apt truly rules! This isn't partisan (well, okay, it is, but it's for very good, objective reasons). The Debian Apt system is really, honestly, the best software-getter I've ever seen. In conjunction with the Debian Packaging Guidelines, which cover many very important rules for the creation of Debian packages (basically, that it should follow certain well-defined procedures regarding libraries, configuration requirements, file locations etc), Apt really spoils the sysadmin. It would be very painful for me to move to anything other than Debian now...
The problem is, Microsoft wishes to deny me the choice to use anything else, by making sure Microsoft "standards" are more prevalent than any other "standards", real or perceived, and ensuring
you can only take advantage of MS "standards" on MS platforms. Individual actions alone may not be
"smoking guns," but the sum of their actions and behaviour towards any potential competitors and
developers leads me to believe they wish to deny me and millions of others a choice we don't begrudge their customers.
That is wrong.
Think to yourself about what you've just summed up for the rest of those who would want to argue your points: Microsoft wishes to deny me the choice to use anything else Microsoft may wish to deny you a choice, if they decided today taht anything MS compatible HAD TO use ONLY MS based products you know what, they're only trying to deny you a choice, of which you could easily move away from Microsoft.
Doesn't that seem more logical than to always tread along the same thought of an evil corporation "assimilating" everything in site? Move away, go find another OS, show MS that by you using another OS they mean little to you. Isn't that sweeter justice than moaning and groaning about something out of your reach (MS' so called monopolization)?
By constantly playing into the same "MS is evil", "MS is assimilating", "MS must die", or any other form of thinking along those terms, you're no better than they are. However as someone who has moved away from their (MS') products, you can show that their is life aside from MS, and by contributing positively without all the name calling, finger pointing tactics, people will take a closer look to why others have move away from MS.
It's a nice project to have the FreeBSD ports universally available to other nix variant users, but the comment does little more than annoy. Instead of focusing such negative vibes, people should try to simmer down, and make positive moves under the nix community. Make standards, improve on existing ones, instead of waisting time with the childish games.
My two cents on it all
Want Root?
is the world where the user operates the distribution building tools, and we now have all of the components at hand, which are required to make this world real.
It's instances like this which will push MS over Unix in the end. " we now have all of the components at hand, which are required to make this world real. " For business that have been using MS based products for years, many have made money using Windows so why would they want to switch when people keep up with the name calling and finger pointing? (re: GPL arguments vs. MS and vice versa)For a company so evil, at least they're extending a hand, but according to some this is viewed as MS looking to stir up troubles in the open source community. Maybe so, but how is this comment any different from stirring up the same type of bias "What possible significance could
All the more power to them, however the community should focus on creating, and making things better, not trying to pick fights. I used FreeBSD at home and Open for my server, and have a laptop with W2K that hasn't been used in eons, and each serve their own purpose, bottom line. Comments and write ups so biased to little to sway my vote of confidence in any OS just because someone claims it to be so much better. No sirs I'll be the judge of that as will most others, so why waste time beating a dead horse. It's these same comments used against the open source community.
Everyone wants to jump in on the action, and post why they're better, and oh by the way here are 30,000 more free programs. Yes 30,000 more free programs, 30,000 more comments, and now the whole concept is lost isn't it. Meanwhile MS stands out because they focus. So please focus on making things better not worse with such biasedness
Want Root?
It does none of these, clearly. In that sense it is not a competitor to .NET at all. The article is misleading in that sense.
.NET.
It is more of a competitor to MS's vision of subscription-based services (e.g. Passport) and software leases. These form another part of
In fact the closeset analogy in MS-land is Windows update.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
There's nothing like reading about an application out there and wondering if its in the ports collection.
:)
I had never tried GAIM, and wasn't sure it was available for BSD. But wow.. there it was in the ports...
make
make install
Groovy. Now I have GAIM. I can really dig this whole PORTS thing.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
All ports are stable, there are no development versions of ports. This is possible since FreeBSD ports (unlike Debians apt) only cover add-ons to the operating system. The base operating system (including userland and kernel) is not built together of all little ports, but is one entity. The advantage is that any FreeBSD installation can expect to have at least a similar base everywhere (unlike Linux distros, that tend to be composed of zillions of small packages many of which are optional to install).
Trojan horses are no issue, since all source files are protected with an MD5 checksum (that is, the port includes the MD5 checksum of each source file, and checks them on downloading).
Further it encourages source instead of binary based distribution, still makes using the sources just as easy as using binary distributions for other package systems. The advantages of that are:
- Less chance for virii or trojan horses
- Often smaller files to be sent
- Updates to the package/port itself, not to the original application, only need tiny diffs to be sent.
Another plus (which it shared with debians apt) is automatic dependancies. A port that needs other ports/libraries will automatically get and install those as needed, you don't need to think about prerequisites as with rpm.FreeBSD is not a linux distro, not everyone can post changes into the system, only commiters.
;-)
Also, check out the manual pages.
Ports depends on someone figuring out how to compile various packages on new systems - no centralized point of authority (or, more importantly, blame).
At least with the FreeBSD ports it is very easy to find who has commited the port and get them to fix it or get help. It very much DOES have a central authority.
If you haven't checked it out, see what ports really is... who knows, you may like it
VANBO
Did you just make that shit up?
That link isn't even a valid link..
By the way, BSD didn't exist in a Free form until after Linux was already started. BSD is a derivative and AT&T Unix. and didn't fully fork from it until the mid 80's.
Saying BSD invented VM, tcp/ip, etc is no more true than saying linux did.
Ok I found the Ken thompson link. I Also found an ESR reply and conversation with Ken Thompson. (Remember this was in ancient history, May 1999)
/proc and devfs, etc, all show that linux is still a fertile ground for new advancements, and that it doesn't have the ball and chain of unix around its neck as much as some might say. GNOME and KDE, while some might say are knock-offs of current gui designs, themselves contain many new innovations and advancements in the field. Innovation literally means "something new". I think it has been bastardized recently to mean "Invention" which it doesnt. Invention is something else altogether, and I think linux has a few original inventions as well, some already named.
Link.
It's interesting to note that Ken Thompson admits that he isn't that well versed with current linux trends (being 1999 at the time), and clarifies that he was really only referring to the media attention paid to linux, not the developers of linux, when he said that linux exists as an anti-microsoft. That was how the media was portraying it at the time.
Ken Thompson also says that Computer Science is approaching maturity as a field and wont be seeing any great new advances. Well, all I ahve to say to Ken Thompson is look at Newton the advent of Physics. Newton thought that after Principia and his other venerable works, the field was dead, and any new advancements would be small and incremental. We shall see if ken is right.
Your points about BSD are well taken, but only in a historical sense do they really matter at all. Btw, the first VM system was developed on a Multics I beleive, which isn't unix. If linux isn't innovative, than neither is freebsd or solaris. Things like reiserfs, TUX (the web server), TUX2 (the new filesystem using phase trees and directory hashes), the inclusion of
That was a nice job explaining the link there. I hadn't quite gotten it either.
Thanks
from www.gentoo.org
"Gentoo Linux is a fast and modern, completely free x86-based Linux distribution with a clean and flexible design. Unlike other distros, Gentoo Linux has an advanced package management system called Portage. Portage is a true ports system in the tradition of BSD ports, but is Python-based and sports a number of advanced features including dependencies, fine-grained package management, "fake" (OpenBSD-style) installs, safe unmerging, system profiles, virtual packages, config file management, and more."
What's wrong with grabbing a source package and doing rpm --rebuild? Okay, that's two steps instead of one, but it's not that much of a big deal.
Well, first you have to FIND the package. Then you can download it. Then build it.
Ports and apt-get (Debian) use standard distro archives. You never need to FIND the package. This may seem like a little step improvement, but it leads to a HUGE increase in user-friendliness.
As for apt vs ports - both are great and both work well. Competition is good. One can expect each of them to pull other free unices up to their level in the next two years. And that is good for everyone.
Ports: suck source and dependent source down across the net, configure for your system, build, install.
Apt-get for Debian: suck binaries down across the net, resolve dependencies, install
All other distros: trying to catch up.
Ports is even a step more fine grained than apt-get, simply because it works with source, and incompatibilities are nearly impossible (the package will refuse to build instead).
The Ports system is great, sure beats the hell out of RPM and the like. But comparing Ports to .Net is an apples and oranges comparision. What does a source code retrieval/build system have to do with a multi-platform runtime engine for applications. Comparing Java and .Net is closer, but .Net will support (MS claims) fifty languages not one. All .Net really is, is a way to get COM on more platforms.
Wouldn't it be possible for the kernel developers to add Linux support for FreeBSD binaries if it hasn't been already and then just install the .NET tools under Linux?
Have you ever tried Debian's dselect or similar tools RPM-based Linux distributions have nowadays?
Kidding aside, they are what I call 'the hard way to portability', and have managed to port hundreds of software packages on several Unix platform (and now they are slowly but constantly creeping on the 'enemy' platform, too ).
Pity that most developers are lazy(including myself) and wants more easier way to write portable software, like Java or other byte-compiled languages.
Ciao
----
FB
The vision of .NET doing all sorts of RPC with XML over HTTP as the protocol to access web services (e.g. obtaining the current headlines on slashdot, stock quotes, perform a translation, or some other interesting web service), the author of the original article may have been trying to say that having access to the multitude of Open Source applications out there makes web services redundant since you could just download an Open Source app to do what the web service does.
This is probably true for a subset of web services but things like a realtime flight tracker provided by the airline's website, UPS's package tracker, real time stock quotes, or other information that belongs to a company that you cannot directly access is where web services will shine and simply downloading Open Source apps or various screen scrapers won't cut it.
PS: I posted part of this comment in another thread.
--
On second thought there is one way one might consider that this competes with
--
And so is rpm -ivh package.rpm. From the main FreeBSD ports pages, all I gleaned was that in principle I would have to compile all the source code for the applications I want to run. I can understand how doing this would give a "custom" compilation, but I haven't had problems with RPM.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Darwin as Apple uses it in MacOS X is released under the APSL, however, this is not under the APSL, but rather a GPL'd version of the same things, it is GNU Darwin, not Apple Darwin. Essentially the same core, but different audiences/developers.
40 ? You're paying too much.. I pay 24.95 + 5.00 for shipping ... (from Walnut Creek/BSDI/whomever)
UPS Sucks
.NET is a programming environment. Everything I've read in MSDN and tried out in the Betas points to it making life easier for me to code stuff on Windows. I fail to see what this has to do width subscription based software.
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
I didn't want to be moderated up dammit, I just wanted an answer to my specific points. Pleeeeeeeease?
.NET is gonna make my life a bit easier. The three things I listed are three things that I'm looking forward to. As a developer, that's why I'm gonna go with .NET. What are these BSD ports and how are they going to steal my attention away from the .NET Microsoft has so lovingly crafted just for me?
Let me clarify: I'm a Microsoftee, and I'm happy that
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
Microsoft distributes a disassembler with the .NET SDK... So some hackers who aren't content to play with the bytecode get to play with MSIL as well... Can't hurt... But goddamn you have a nice analogy
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
Hello. Could one of you PLEASEPLEASEPLEASE explain to me what this is and how it goes against Microsoft's .NET? Thank you.
If you get a chance, could you explain:
-how does it make it easier for systems to communicate with each other? (soap stuff)
-how does this make it easier for people working in multiple langauges to integrate their stuff? (you know, people in vb inheriting classes from c++, people in delphi using source written in c#, etc)
-how does this make it easier to write ASP applications that don't care what browser you're using? (webforms)
Major thanks in advance
Peace,
Amit
ICQ 77863057
[o]_O
I don't know if ports is the answer, but the spirit of 'we don't have to do what MS does, we can do better' is a little weak on the free side sometimes.
.NET can be developed on the free side, then migrated over to WINdos, that would be a huge victory for freedom.
If a suitable competitor of
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
First off, MS never 'extends a hand' to anyone. They are merely offering a subset of the service so as to appear 'cross platform'.
Just like everything they do, it's all about 'embrace, extend, extinguish'. Whatever bones they throw to the free side, it will always lag behind, and be feature poor, compared to their flagship.
This attempt to take over the server side authentication process may succeed, but it may fail...just because companies don't want to be a slave to MS.
It's impossible to make the argument that MS has ever done anything to 'help' their users...but they continue to try and find ways to extract as much money as possible from their user's pocketbooks. Server side authentication and proprietary services will kill all competitors, and remove all choice...earning MS a fortune that will make their current trasure chest seem like a pittance. Do we want to pay for that?
When 'free software' beats the final criticism into the ground -- that it is difficult to install and expensive to administer and maintain -- MS could start to lose miserably.
Developers have got to start makeing their user schemas intuitive and logical, and that takes user testing...I think we are seeing a lot more of this, and it is on the increase.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
I don't mean to plug, but Gentoo Linux has had a system similar to ports for quite some time now. It's superior to posts (imho) and we plan on eventually porting it to other unix-like operating systems (such as OSX, IRIX, etc.)
Try Gentoo Linux!
If you like ports, check out mpkg. It is another ports tree for multiple platforms. It's a bit different from the rest of them, so it's worth a look.
A HUGE part of what all Unix is today is directly traced to BSD work. Work from Linux so far, hasn't shown really up anywhere else.
Yes that's right, that's why a Linux emulation layer is a key feature in all of the Free Software *BSD's and a rapidly increasing number of commercial Unices. AIX is putting its future on having Linux emulation.
I'm not saying the Linux kernel or glibc is technically more advanced - it is superior in some areas to the BSD's and inferior in others. However, given the importance of Linux-led software (who employs the most important hackers on KDE and GNOME for example?) you can hardly say that no work from Linux has been used elsewhere, or that it isn't innovative.
Ports depends on someone figuring out how to compile various packages on new systems - no centralized point of authority (or, more importantly, blame). Furthermore, there's no equivalent of a device-independent language for writing new applications.
Are the moderators on crack today or is this your troll account that you then mod up from your normal account when you have mod points?
Don't be ridiculous. The centralized point of authority for the BSD ports system is the BSD ports team. In exactly the same way as the Debian developers (and bug-tracking system) are your first port of call for problems with Debian-packaged software. Of course you can't really sue them if something terrible happens, but you can't sue Microsoft either - check out your EULA.
As for there being no device-independent language for use with the ports system, what do you think Java is? Or, for that matter - Perl and the Bourne Shell, which are almost universal throughout the Unix world? Sure, Perl is interpreted (although it doesn't have to be) but even as an interepreted language it shifts very quickly. Don't forget things like the GTK+/Perl bindings too, so don't argue you can't write user-friendly GUI apps with it - you can.
What would be an interesting project though is a JIT compiler for Perl - it has everything going for it otherwise as another, Open Source alternative to C#, including huge ease of use advantages.
This somehow implies that being able to quickly download and Open Source applications is somehow in competition with .NET which is about XML web services. It is a thing of particular bemusement to me that Open Source advocates and Slashdot editors keep attacking a .NET which is a figment of their imaginations and has nothing to do with what truly constitutes .NET (which can be gleaned from just reading the .NET website).
.NET technical docs? Because looking at them I would say this "figment of our imagination" .NET isn't too far from the mark. The way I read it it's basically like java, only for stuff written in any language. Which is essentially an easy way to "[be] able to quickly download and [run] applications". Which is how this whole non-competing competition thing is. Go read up more, then post, thank you.
Have you read any of the
Ever get the impression that your life would make a good sitcom?
Ever follow this to its logical conclusion: that your life is a sitcom?
"I don't care about the Constitution!" --Bill O'Reilly, November 17, 2009
-Pat
Bloody nothing to do with .NET. Hey guys, the ports tree has been around for a while. It's one of the main really cool things about FreeBSD, yes, good that you're giving it the recognition it deserves, pity that you seem to have inspired a slew of idiotic pro- and anti-BSD trolls, but .NET?!
my old sig used to be funny, but then slashcode ate it and now it's not funny anymore
What does this have to do with .NET; I assumed there would be some kind of intermediate code base or something. But all I see is an open platform.
The whole ports thing is not manna from heaven. The fact that it would require the generic user to download source and then build it... yeah right.
With the innumerable problems that often pop up when compiling sourcecode you think that joe and jane-blow user are going to simply be able to download and build? Hardly.
Ports is a godsend to in-the-know BSD/*nix users but not is worth jack to my father, brother, sisters, neighbors, all who barely know how to dialup to AOL or juno.
Nope, .NET is in no danger from ports for the standard, cookie-cutter, ignorant end-user. It is the other way around.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
It's not even worrying about making money, though money IS necessary...unless you are a trust fund baby with buttloads of mommy and daddy's money to suck off of. The problem is that you (the collective you) do all this work for the sake of BSD only for a company like M$ to come along, fold YOUR work into their product and use it to make tons of money with a system that is totally incompatible with yours. They use your work to try to create a world in which your chosen BSD is all but useless but to a few.
The bigger problem is that the BSD license selects for fragmentation rather than cohesiveness. Apple takes BSD, folds it into their OS, software developers write programs to work with Apple's BSD - none of it will run on your personal BSD. Your hard work was used to create a system that doesn't support your chosen OS. You are left out in the cold vis a vis software developers (no games or any other possibly desirous apps for you - just whatever you and your relatively few buddies can spin up in a weekend).
This may be perfectly fine for a few hardcore BSD users but it is NOT in the best interests of standards and general end-users. They are, as they are now, shuttled into the propriatory M$ or Apple world if they want to run the apps they REALLY want to run. This does nothing for non-Apple, non-M$ users and it does nothing for BSD. It simply continues the present situation as it stands with, particularly, M$. No real competition (no courts actually doing anything to fix this situation), no apps that people actually want to use available for non-M$/Apple systems (in general I mean games and financial/productivity software), including your BSD.
Why is it better that companies like Apple and M$ do the very same thing they have always done (M$ being the worst but ONLY because they are in a position of a monopoly - if Apple were in that position, they would be equally bad) but instead of with Windows and MacOS, they are based on BSD? There is no difference! It doesn't make the situation better, doesn't increase user choice, doesn't increase software development for non-M$ or non-Apple OSes.
M$ CAN and WILL embrace, extend, extinguish ANYONE who tries to compete against them, whether they are offereng some BSD variant or not. On the other hand, M$ cannot legally do this to linux. They cannot embrace and extend it, thus marginalizing it - if they tried, they would be de facto violating copyright law and would be liable.
I really don't see how *BSD and its licensing is in any way an improvement on anything. It still allows monopolists like M$ to do business as usual whether they use BSD stuff or not.
This is supposed to be a good thing?
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
I think it's time you reevaluated your goals. What do you want out of the software you write? The respect and admiration of your peers or a wad of cash?
I just have to add a question/comment to this statement. What good is admiration or cool points? Does it pay the rent? Pay health insurance? Buy plane tickets home for the holidays? Pay for a nice vacation every once in a while? Pay tuition? Buy food? Repair a broken-down car? Pay vet bills for a pet?
If I work, regardless of whether I like the work or am neutral about it, my sweat is worth something to me and cool points doesn't cut it. I don't work so someone can suck off me for nothing but a pat on the back. For a hobby that I enjoy, I am willing to forgo pay, naturally, but for a non-hobby? NOT!
If the world of software is supposed to be based on the kindness of strangers and charity, then the software world is in for woe.
Not to keep bringing up games as the end-all, be-all, but they have surpassed movies as the biggest money maker in entertainment recently. Name ONE game that is in high demand the way Doom was, Quake was/is, half-life is, etc, that comes out of donated work simply for cool points. Name a single such complicated software package that can keep up with the latest/greatest in software technology (game engines, AI, etc). There is not a single such creature on the planet that comes from hobbyist software coders who work for the sake of joy of coding and getting praise and coolpoints. Not. One.
Some software REQUIRES a company to create it and it requires that it pay for itself with cash rather than cool points. Hobbyist coders are too slow and lumbering and time-limited to do anything like this. The ones that get faster results are those sponsored (paid) by someone so they can devote more than simple free-time to a hobby.
Maybe engineers should forgo being paid and just accept cool points and admiration for their work. Maybe roadcrews should forgo being paid and accept thank yous for repairing potholes and paving streets. Maybe doctors should just accept a handshake. Biotech companies should just accept heartfelt thank yous for the immense expense involved in creating ANY drug. Why should software coders be singled out to be in some weird special catagory of no-pay? They (coders) are not superior beings. They need to pay expenses just like everyone else.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Are you saying that with ports, there is NEVER a dependency problem? You NEVER have problems with failed builds because you have libx-2.1 and the package you want requires libx-2.5? What about multiple dependencies? Ports will download each and every required lib in addition to the desired software itself? That itself is a problem. 56K modem downloading 75 megabytes of stuff to make the 200k package properly compile?
RPM or tarballs don't get around this, of course, and ports may reduce the amount of work ("make" instead of either "rpm --rebuild x.rpm" or "./configure, make, make install") but is that really THAT significant a difference? There are problems with rpm and tarballs vis a vis dependencies but I cannot imagine that ports is magically immune to dependencies - it just automatically gets them (all the many megabytes) automatically? Great, sure, but it isn't something that must only be confined to ports - there is no reason an RPM system or apt system couldn't do exactly what ports does - download an rpm you want, check to make sure you meet dependencies, download those too, install, done.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
OK, then I mistook your point "rethink your goals". I like linux and related "free" software and I have nothing against the model. What I DO have a proble with, and what I meant by "you gain nothing" is that a company, let's call it Microsnot, takes BSD code, which YOU worked hard on for many months, alters it so that it will only work with their systems, and then doesn't give the alteration back to you so you can incorporate it and make your system intercompatible.
Again, I just don't see a benefit to BSD and BSD users for their license which allows alteration/perversion of code even if ALL it does is make the altered code totally incompatible with the original intent and design - feeding a monopoly more tools to remain a monopoly and lock out possible competitors in general.
So, MacOS X is now largely BSD-based. Big wup! That means that MacOS X can now run any/all generic BSD apps but BSD cannot run Mac apps because they require Quartz which is nice but is stuck on top of BSD such that it is incompatible. This isn't that bad but with M$, they take the code you and yours work hard on day after day, fold it into their crap, make their crap totally propriatory and exclusive and incompatible with you and yours - thus giving you nothing back. It isn't so much money, it is about taking YOUR work to feed their monopoly and stranglehold.
To me, giving back to BSD would be to make whatever alteration they want, but then returning that alteration to you gratis so there is no pointless incompatibility.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
OK, let's say .NET works out the way M$ hopes. This DOES affect you, though you may not give a damn, but it also affects all other NOT you. Your coding, folded without condition into M$ stuff is now used to monopolize the internet in large swathes. People who do not use M$ are locked out of a lot of the altered/monopolized internet. Your BSD code, good and there for the taking, is perverted into something that locks people out of much of the internet if it isn't in the form M$ took and perverted without value (don't forget, their "value add" is to make it so you HAVE to use their OS and services if you want to get anything done). How is this good for all?
So, to you this is fine. YOU and yours get along happily in your internet and coding niche, damn the effects on everyone else. My concern is that BSD licensing and code allows someone like M$ to come along, take it, alter it without posting the alterations so it can be used freely by others (for the sake of compatibility). I am sick and tired of M$ altering HTML, Kerberos, etc, ONLY so as to try to lock in users to their OS. This is NOT value-adding. BSD licensing encourages, allows, doesn't give a damn that this happens - apparently because the coders don't give a damn about the ultimate consequences for others. They are happy in their little world, caring nothing about the wider world they can affect by their neutrality. I don't care about specific apps, they can alter those all they want, but when it impacts on the internet, internet commerce, connectivity, network interconnectivity, etc, then the BSD license is crap because it begs for M$ to leverage their monopoly in OS into locking up huge swathes of the internet and networking in general. This is a good thing? Perfectly OK and blase and ho-hum? To you perhaps, but what of the rest of us who don't live in that cozy little tiny world?
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
i once installed freebsd and to my disgust i had to ftp every fucking application, compile the source and install the binaries.
I'm going to assume you're familiar with RPMs (maybe this is a bad assumption.)
Ever tried playing the game of dependencies with RPMs?
# rpm -U foo-2.75-1.i386.rpm
foo-2.75-1 requires bar-4.05
foo-2.75-1 requires baz-4.05
# rpm -i bar-4.05-2.i386.rpm
bar-4.05-2 would break dependency of quux-0.91
FreeBSD ports tend to take care of these for you. If a dependency is missing, it grabs the distfile and builds that one too. Breakages are also a bit more rare (in my experience, YMMV).
You don't wanna build from source, you say? Grab the package then and play the dependency game again.
And if you don't wanna ftp the distfiles or packages, buy the damn CDs. $40 is still nothing compared to whatever load M$ is gonna bring forth.
Thus sprach DrQu+xum.
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
Unless I'm completely mistaken, I just downloaded the Windows XP preview and get to use it for 180 days because it's a beta. There is no subscription involved because when those 180 days expire, I have the option to go back to Win2000.
And how much do you want to wager that you'll have to rebuild it when trying to revert back to W2k destroys your registry and half your apps?
Or use the Linux side of my box.
Better get used to it. Of course, I wouldn't be the least surprised when the regression buggers up your boot record. I know, it shouldn't even touch it, but hey, we all know M$ would do anything to cripple Linux....
And as for the monthly subscription fee, that's nothing new -- DEC and a bunch of the other oldies were doing that 20+ years ago. Innovation my hairy arse.
Thus sprach DrQu+xum.
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
It's nice that it runs on MacOS and a variety of unices, but where's the Windows version? The world does not revolve around unix anymore, and if you expect this to make even a small dent in .NET usage, then it HAS to run on Windows. If it doesn't
then you might as well quit now.
Jane Blow: Help, .word does not work, it says: "unexpected bytecode in .net.native.compile"
.help: have you tried rebooting your .windows machine?
.windows and call me back to get a new registration number. If that doesn't work, we will go through your hardware and see if it is .net approved. We'll send you an invoice for $100
MS
Jane Blow: Yes, the error still occurs
MS. help: Ok, wipe your hard disk, reinstall
Jane Blow: Thanks!
isn't this what apt-get is for? Yup, apt-get 0wns u!
This sig is intentionally left blank
Yes that's right, that's why a Linux emulation layer is a key feature in all of the Free Software *BSD's and a rapidly increasing number of commercial Unices. AIX is putting its future on having Linux emulation.
That's because Linux developers don't know how to write proper code. Hear me out -- this isn't meant as a troll.
Anything written for *BSD or most other UNIX systems are written with the idea that they will be compiled on pretty much anything. So almost any code you find on *BSD (other than kernel code), you will be able to compile and run on Linux with no problem.
However, a lot of Linux programs (add-on packages; the GNU base is relatively portable) are written with a much narrower view of the world. They assume that you're running glibc, or that you have Linux-specific IOCTLs. Whether this is due to arrogance or simply a lower skill level I cannot say. It may simply be that many newbie programmers don't know any better.
Notice I did not say all Linux software suffers from this problem. There are more than a few talented developers out there, however there signal-to-noise ratio makes them hard to find. One of the reasons that FreeBSD has a Linux compatibility layer is that there is a lot of Linux-centric code floating around that hasn't been ported yet. The other is of course closed-source software.
Unix: Where /sbin/init is Job 1
"It doesn't really make it easier or harder to code stuff on windows"
Actually, it does make it easier in some cases. As noted in another message, it makes it easier to create a program made up of components in different languages.
Perhaps MS made a mistake by lumping a lot of different technologies under one name.
The whole ports tree is precompiled into packages which you can also download. This takes away the compilation step for morons who have no clue.
"Why do you consent to live in ignorance and fear?" - Bad Religion
a) Crib its best functionality ideas within Open Source, without infringing on patents,
b) Ignore .Nyet, and
c) Tell Alchin that real people in actual business situations judge the MS subscription-based model for productivity applications "un-American". Entertainment, al la AOL, is one thing, but my word processor is quite another. Find another victim.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
By the way, BSD didn't exist in a Free form until after Linux was already started.
:-)
Yes and no. It did exist in "free form", then it got attacked by AT&T (for trying to be "free") and was in limbo until the courts and coders pulled the last bits of AT&T code out and created 4.4BSD Lite. Had this useless exchange never happened, it's very unlikely that Linux would have existed at all. -At least according to interviews I've read of Linus, stating how he'd probably have just used FreeBSD for study way back when...if it hadn't been encombered.
On other notes...
BSD didn't invent TCP/IP, but it did give Unix it's first incarnation through the Berkeley Sockets interface. First VM in a Unix system was also BSD. Reliable signals, BSD again. Fast File System, BSD. Passing descriptors over UDP, BSD.
Not that SysV just stood there. Most all ideas from BSD have been adopted by SysV, as well as many the other way (shared memory, streams, etc).
A HUGE part of what all Unix is today is directly traced to BSD work. Work from Linux so far, hasn't shown really up anywhere else. Don't get me wrong, Linux is a great system...but innovative it isn't. Thankfully, one doesn't need to innovate to be useful. -Hell, if that was the case Unix itself would be long since dead.
My
Yes - Gnu/open group/AT&T/Xerox/Motorola/Trolltech/......../Alan Cox/Linus/Linux, or perhaps just Linux-PPC.
The linux kernel was developed with the use of gnu tools, but the "gnu" prefix to linux is a recent thing and not added by a developer of linux anyway.
I'd better get back to work using GNU/NT4 (the cygwin tools are the most commonly used user programs on this machine).
I've been programming
Compiling from source, however, gives you the best installation for your specific system, honouring any options you might have in /etc/make.conf (march=[pentium|pentiumpro|k6] for example for tuned compiled code for your system, and several make options to optimize the compiling process itself, like -j3 for example to spawn multiple processes to have a balanced cpu/io usage, etc etc etc).
Ports is just a random collection of programs, some of which may solve specific problems, and most of which are written in the Unix style of minimal luser support. Which is the way I like it, but not the way most people like to deal with their computer.
Ports depends on someone figuring out how to compile various packages on new systems - no centralized point of authority (or, more importantly, blame). Furthermore, there's no equivalent of a device-independent language for writing new applications.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
If you haven't tried the ports system, I highly recommend you do so. They're a VERY convenient way to install new software.
I KNOW I'm right. And if I'm not, I'm STILL right...
Um, no. But I'm not. Unless I'm completely mistaken, I just downloaded the Windows XP preview and get to use it for 180 days because it's a beta. There is no subscription involved because when those 180 days expire, I have the option to go back to Win2000. Or use the Linux side of my box.
Don't really care too much. I reformat this thing every couple of months anyway: both Linux and Windows sides (I like a clean system).
"Of course, I wouldn't be the least surprised when the regression buggers up your boot record."
Yeah, it eats the MBR, but that's no different than every other NT release to date (including those when Linux was not a factor). I don't really care about that either, because I always boot my Linux side using a floppy.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to ask this: "what's wrong with them?" Simply because they're run by Microsoft? Nice excuse, but, I usually need something a bit more substantial...
now that valinux boxen are going so cheap, anybody know how well the 1RU units (1000,1221) run FreeBSD? in SMP config?
---
"i was saying gnu-rd"